Court : Delhi
$~J- * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:06. 09.2017 Pronounced on:31. 01.2018 O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Adv. and Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Amit Mishra, Mr.Mohit Singh, Ms.Hima Lawrence, Mr.Akshay Puri, Mr.Keshav Raychaudhuri, Mr.Rohan Jaitley, Mr.Aditya Shankar, Mr.Mikhil Sharda, Mr.Jayvardhan Singh, Mr.Shivam Pandey, Ms.Samridhi Hota & Mr.Samaksh Goyal, Advs. Mr.Abhijeet Sinha, versus MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. ....... RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Harish N.Salve, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Anuradha Dutt, Ms.Fereshte D.Sethna, Ms.Vijaylakshmi Menon, Ms.Ekta Kapil, Ms.Neeharika Aggarwal, Ms.Akanshsa Banerjee, Mr.Anirudh Bakhru & Mr.Chaitanya Kaushik, Advs. for R-1 to 4 & R-13. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates for R-5 and 9 to 12. Mr.Rohit Chaudhary and Ms.Preeti Kohli, Advs. for R-6 to R-8. Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr.Adv. wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO494OF2012JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR. ..Petitioners VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..Respondents WITH T.C. (CIVIL) NO151OF2013T.C. (CIVIL) NO152OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO833OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO829OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO932OF2013CONMT. PET. (CIVIL) NO144OF2014IN W.P.(C) No.494/2012 T.P.(CIVIL) NO313OF2014T.P.(CIVIL) NO312OF2014S.L.P(CRL.) NO.2524/2014 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.37/2015 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.220/2015 1 CONMT. PET. (C)NO.674/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.829/2013 T.P.(CIVIL)NO.921/2015 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.470/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.444/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.608/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.797/2016 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.844/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 W.P. (C) No.342/ 2017 AND WITH W.P.(C) NO.000372/2017 JUDGMENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are : A The reference B Decision in M P Sharma C D E F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6203-6204__OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1259-1260 of 2016) Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix Appellants versus Deputy Speaker and others Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The 5th session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as, the Assembly/House) was concluded on 21.10.2015. On 3.11.2015, the Governor issued an order summoning the 6th session of the Assembly, to meet on 14.1.2016 in the Legislative Assembly Chamber at Naharlagun. The instant order was passed by the Governor, on the aid and advice of the Chief Minister, and in consultation with the Speaker of the House. The 6th session of the House was preponed by the Governor from 14.1.2016 to 16.12.2015, by an order dated 9.12.2015 indicating inter alia the manner in which the proceedings of the House should be conducted. In its support, the Governor issued a message on 9.12.2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2015Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another Petitioner(s) versus Union of India Respondent(s) With |WRIT PETITION (C) No.14 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.23 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.24 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.70 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.83 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.108 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.124 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.209 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.309 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.310 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.323 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.341 OF2015| |TRANSFER PETITION(C) No.391 OF2015 |TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.971 OF2015 | | JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.Index |Sl.No.|Contents |Paragraphs|Pages | |1. |The Recusal Order | 1 - 18| 1 - | | | | |15 | | | | | | |2. |The Reference Order | 1 - 101| 16 - 169| |I |The Challenge | 1 - | 16 - | | | |9 |19 | |II. |The Background to the Challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (C) No.150 OF2006Madras Bar Association Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and another Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3850 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3862 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3881 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.3882 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.4051 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.4052 OF2006WRIT PETITION (C) NO.621 OF2007TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.116 OF2006TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.117 OF2006TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO.118 OF2006WRIT PETITION (C) NO.697 OF2007JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.The Controversy:1. All the above cases are being disposed of by this common judgment. The issue which arises for consideration before us, in the present bunch of cases, pertains to the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, the NTT Act). Simultaneously, the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 has been assailed, by asserting, that the same vio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.15438 of 2013 and batch 28-4-2014 G. Satyanarayana.. Petitioner The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Prabhakar Sripada Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) HEAD NOTE: ?. CASES REFERRED:1. AIR1982S.C. 1081 2. 2001(3) ALD6003. 1972(1) ALT2704. AIR1976A.P. 19 5. (1902) 1 MLJ4536. 2008(5) ALT313(DB) 7. 2011(5) ALT4208. 2011(3) ALD5719. (2000(3) ALT295 10. AIR1974S.C. 1178 11. AIR2000S.C. 3037 = 2000(7) SCC611 12. (1991) Supp. (2) SCC22813. AIR1956S.C. 305 14. (2006) 13 SCC14715. AIR1926P.C. 100 16. AIR1961A.P.361 17. 1996(11) SCC25718. 1989(3) SCC61219. 1993(4) SCC34920. 2002(5) ALT370(DB) 21. (1995) 3 SCC42622. 1999(5) ALD30923. 2002(1) ALT46624. AIR1952Hyderabad 75 25. ILR72A.P. 652 26. 1996(2) ALT95027. 1999(4) ALT209DB28 AIR1954SC57529. AIR1973SC129930. AIR1979SC86131. 2000(7) SCC6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Vinodh Coomaraswamy JC: 1. For virtually all of her working life, the plaintiff has worked in the flowers, gifts, hampers and wreaths business. In 2008, the defendant acquired the business in which she was employed. After the acquisition, the plaintiff continued to serve as the sales manager of this business without interruption, but now with the defendant as her employer. Her employment agreement contains express post-termination non-competition and non-solicitation covenants. 2. In November 2011, the plaintiff resigned from the defendant's employment. In December 2011, the plaintiff's notice period ended and her employment with the defendant came to an end. Shortly afterwards, she informed it that she intended to set up her own business selling flowers and gifts. The defendant reminded the plaintiff of her non-competition covenant and threatened to sue her if she breached it. In the end, it was the plaintiff who sued the defendant in the Subordinate Courts (as the State Courts were t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By this petition (667 of 2011) filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned award dated 13th July, 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator holding that the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents stood terminated by repudiation on the part of the petitioners and on acceptance thereof by the respondents and directing the respondents to refund of Rs.73,00,51,960/- to the petitioners within a period of 90 days of the said award. The learned arbitrator also awarded arbitration cost in favour of the respondents herein in the sum of Rs.33,00,000/-. The petitioners to this petition were respondents in the arbitration proceedings. By petition (629 of 2011) the petitioners seek interim measures. The respondents herein were claimants in the arbitration proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are set out hereinunder:- 2. By a Deed of Transfer of...
Tag this Judgment!